Although I agree, there is no comparison, we need to take into consideration each person’s spiritual depth and holiness when taking communion in either form, which of course, we cannot know. However, one cannot make generalizations such as “all” Novus Ordo Masses being “grossly irreverent and treating sacred things in an unworthy and disrespectful manner”.Objectively speaking which act of receiving the Eucharist shows more reverence to the presence of our Lord? 1. Receiving the body and blood of our Lord while standing in line, in the hand, by a layman? Or. 2. On your knees at the alter rail receiving the body and blood of our Lord on the tongue, from only the consecrated hands of a Priest acting in Persona Christi?
There is no comparison.
The Novus Ordo is grossly irreverent and treats sacred things in an unworthy and disrespectful manner.
That’s the maddening part. We take these sorts of subjective statements and “deem” them objective. Therein lies a great deal of the problem.However, one cannot make generalizations such as “all” Novus Ordo Masses being “grossly irreverent and treating sacred things in an unworthy and disrespectful manner”.
Thanks for the tip. Personally I’m not into apparitions of any kind, heck I don’t even call myself a traditionalist, but I’m aware some others are into apparitions and I didn’t want to leave anything out. As I’ve said, though, COTT is a very personal issue with me and will side with the traditionalists on this one.To: ProVobis:
‘Our Lady Of The Roses’ is a disapproved apparition. You shouldn’t promote it here. Also, the ‘seer’ in question made some predictions, with dates, which didn’t come true. Case closed.
I expressed my opinion just as you expressed yours. I dont. It has its roots in Protestantism. Luther denied the real presence. QUOTE]
I can’t let that pass. I don’t know what Luther believed, but I can tell you that Lutherans DO believe in the Real Presence. They don’t believe in the theory of Transubstantiation to explain the Real Presence, preferring to explain it by ‘consubstantiation’.
But they DO believe in the Real Presence, however it is explained.
I didnt pull it dwon to that level-you did.Bob, if you honestly believe people stick their tongues out at Jesus then there’s not much more we can discuss. Ask youself why the Church makes this sign of ‘disrespect’ in your eyes the universal norm? Why has this sign of ‘disrespect’ been the universal norm for centuries?
Please don’t pull this thread down to such a level. I’d like to see a mature and intellectual discussion on this subject.
How about supplying the debate with some substantial references or supporting information. Do you have a pope, saint, or doctor of the Church agreeing with your position?
You asked for quote from a single Saint and I gave it to you.Please go back and read post #1. St. Cyril’s quote is a given and we all know CITH is approved. The questions are why and how. Why and How.
Actaually my points pretty much puts an end to the discussion-unless you want to have a discssion as to why we should acceptyou opinions over the actons of the Church?Thank you for your contribution to this discussion Bob. Your points are duly noted.
If anyone else can explain why and how CITH got into the GIRM I’d appreciate it. Did it just magically appear? Did the U.S. bishops one day out of the blue for no apparent reason decide to make a change? What happened? Why did a practice outlawed for centuries become the de facto norm?
Actually, detractors say this quote might have been the work of his successor, a person of dubious orthodoxy. Are there any more Saints or Doctors of the Church that have approved this practice?Please go back and read post #1. St. Cyril’s quote is a given and we all know CITH is approved. The questions are why and how. Why and How.
Was the ruling by Pope Paul VI likewsie from a person of dubious orthodoxy?Actually, detractors say this quote might have been the work of his successor, a person of dubious orthodoxy. Are there any more Saints or Doctors of the Church that have approved this practice?
You can end your participation in this discussion at any time simply by not opening the thread. I’d like to delve into this subject deeper than “It’s approved!”Actaually my points pretty much puts an end to the discussion-unless you want to have a discssion as to why we should acceptyou opinions over the actons of the Church?
Does anyone know what the reasons are referred to in this letter? That might explain the ‘Why’?The Vatican’s Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship issued in 1977 the following in response to the request for permission for communion in the hand:
In reply to the request of your conference of bishops regarding permission to give communion by placing the host on the hand of the faithful, I wish to communicate the following. Pope Paul Vl calls attention to the purpose of the Instruction Memoriale Domini of 29 May 1969, on retaining the traditional practice in use. At the same time he has taken into account the reasons given to support your request and the outcome of the vote taken on this matter. The Pope grants that throughout the territory of your conference, each bishop may, according to his prudent judgment and conscience, authorize in his diocese the introduction of the new rite for giving communion. The condition is the complete avoidance of any cause for the faithful to be shocked and any danger of irreverence toward the Eucharist.
Pope Paul VI is not a Saint or Doctor of the Church. Give it another 100 years. Did he promote CITH? AFAIK, in his time, permission was given for CITH in dioceses where it was already established, with COTT retained as the norm. Decades later, it seems to be everywhere, along with altar girls and children’s drawings in the sanctuary.Was the ruling by Pope Paul VI likewsie from a person of dubious orthodoxy?
Actually, these show how we got in this state:Layman, is this one better?
catholic-pages.com/mass/inhand.asp
or this one?
catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=31755
I don’t know about that. The ‘celebratory meal’ is emphasised way over the Sacrifice. If it’s ‘The Lords banquet’, as I’ve heard it called on this forum, COTT being dropped isn’t a surprise. Who kneels to be hand-fed at a meal?So true, Layman. Worship has shifted from a focus on God to man. CITH fits nicely with this philosophy as man now takes God, has control over Him, and feeds himself.